MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903358943

A Spectrum of Tools to Support Litigation Risk Assessment: Promise and Limitations

2017· article· en· W2903358943 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Heather Heavin, Michaela Keet

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of law and technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToolboxFocus (optics)Risk analysis (engineering)Risk assessmentComputer scienceManagement scienceKnowledge managementBusinessEngineeringComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sentencing of offenders is completed often only after risk assessments have been calculated, using tools that evaluate the chance that an offender will reoffend, and under what circumstances.A common tool used in Provincial Court in Saskatchewan is the LSI (Level of Service Inventory).For discussion of the range of tools used for these purposes, see ''Risk Assessment: Approaches and Applications", InsidePrison (April 2006), online: <http://www.insideprison.com/risk-assessment.asp>; and Glen Luther & Mansfield Mela, ''The Top Ten Issues in Law and Psychiatry" (2006) 69:2 Sask L Rev 401 at 412-18.Police services are also increasingly gathering data and analyzing it to better predict

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of law and technologySame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207